STOP ALL AID TO INDIA

India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

..........................

Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The disclosure will fuel the rising controversy over Britain’s aid to India.

The country is the world’s top recipient of British bilateral aid, even though its economy has been growing at up to 10 per cent a year and is projected to become bigger than Britain’s within a decade.

Last week India rejected the British-built Typhoon jet as preferred candidate for a £6.3 billion warplane deal, despite the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, saying that Britain’s aid to Delhi was partly “about seeking to sell Typhoon.”

Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.

“We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session.

“It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure].” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up.

According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed “not to avail [of] any further DFID [British] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,” because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”.

But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause “grave political embarrassment” to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.

DFID has sent more than £1 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further £600 million on Indian aid by 2015.

“They said that British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate,” one source told The Sunday Telegraph.

“They said it would be highly embarrassing if the Centre [the government of India] then pulled the plug.”

Amid steep reductions in most British government spending, the NHS and aid have been the only two budgets protected from cuts.

Britain currently pays India around £280 million a year, six times the amount given by the second-largest bilateral donor, the United States. Almost three-quarters of all foreign bilateral aid going to India comes from Britain. France, chosen as favourite to land the warplane deal, gives around £19 million a year.

Controversial British projects have included giving the city of Bhopal £118,000 to help fit its municipal buses and dustcarts with GPS satellite tracking systems. Bhopal’s buses got satellite tracking before most of Britain’s did.

In India, meanwhile, government audit reports found £70 million had disappeared from one DFID-funded project alone.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds was spent on delivering more than 7,000 televisions to schools — most of which did not have electricity. Few of the televisions ever arrived. A further £44,000 of British aid was allegedly siphoned off by one project official to finance a movie directed by her son.

Most aid donors to India have wound down their programmes as it has become officially a “middle-income country,” according to the World Bank.

However, Britain has reallocated its aid spending to focus on India at the expense of some far poorer countries, including the African state of Burundi, which is having its British bilateral aid stopped altogether from next year.

The decision comes even though India has a £6 billion space programme, nuclear weapons and has started a substantial foreign aid programme of its own. It now gives out only slightly less in bilateral aid to other countries than it receives from Western donors.

Supporters of British aid say that India still contains about a third of the world’s poor, with 450 million people living on less than 80p a day. DFID says its programmes — which are now focused on the country’s three poorest states - save at least 17,000 lives a year and have lifted 2.3 million people out of poverty since 2005.

The junior development minister, Alan Duncan, said last week that cutting off British aid to India “would mean that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, will die who otherwise could live.”

However, Mr Mukherjee told the parliament last August that foreign aid from all sources amounted to only 0.4 per cent of India’s gross domestic product. From its own resources, the Indian government has more than doubled spending on health and education since 2003.

Last year, it announced a 17 per cent rise in spending on anti-poverty programmes. Though massive inequalities remain, India has achieved substantial reductions in poverty, from 60 per cent to 42 per cent of the population in the last thirty years.

Emma Boon, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is incredible that ministers have defended the aid we send to India, insisting it is vital, when now we learn that even the Indian government doesn’t want it.”

As long ago as 2005, MPs on the international development select committee found that India “seems to have become increasingly tired of being cast in the role of aid recipient.” In their most recent report on the programme, last year, they said that British aid to the country should “change fundamentally,” with different sources of funding. The report praised a number of DFID projects, but questioned others.

As well as the Indian government, many other Indians are sceptical about British aid. Malini Mehra, director of an Indian anti-poverty pressure group, the Centre for Social Markets, said aid was “entirely irrelevant” to the country’s real problems, which she said were the selfishness of India’s rich and the unresponsiveness of its institutions.

“DFID are not able to translate the investments they make on the ground into actual changes in the kind of structures that hold back progress,” Ms Mehra said.

“Unless we arouse that level of indignation and intolerance of the situation, aid will make no difference whatsoever.”

Mr Mitchell last night defended British aid, saying: “Our completely revamped programme is in India’s and Britain’s national interest and is a small part of a much wider relationship between our two countries.

“We are changing our approach in India. We will target aid at three of India’s poorest states, rather than central Government.

“We will invest more in the private sector, with our programme having some of the characteristics of a sovereign wealth fund. We will not be in India forever, but now is not the time to quit.”

DFID declined to comment on why it had asked the Indian government to continue with a programme it wanted to end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9061844/India-tells-Britain-We-dont-want-your-aid.html

-----------------------------------

Couldn't think of a better reason why not to stop all Foreign Aid (BRIBE) to India and to spend this money on OUR OWN BRITISH BUSINESSES.

STOP WASTING OUR TAXES YOU TRAITOROUS THIEVING CORRUPT SCUM (our MPs of course).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9061775/Bank-of-England-to-print-further-50-billion.html

THE FOLLY OF FOREIGN AID

In a display of touching gratitude for our gift of billions of pounds in aid the Indian government has repaid us by threatening to buy inferior French war planes rather than ones made by British Aerospace.

Not many months ago Cameron was stating that aid was good for our economy and would help our exports. This has now been shown to be untrue.

No doubt the French used some jiggery pokery to get the order. Their government of whatever colour ALWAYS puts the French interest first however deceitful the methods needed to be employed.

OUR government on the other hand likes to "play the game" and display its caring and multicultural credentials in foreign affairs. The last delegation which was supposed among other things to have promoted the aircraft sale was heavily infiltrated with Asian people promoted above their abilities and only on account of the colour of their skin.

What did the Indians think about thuis display of neo colonialism?

Obviously nothing.

So why do we demean ourselves and donate money we have to borrow (£40 million per day) to a country with more billionaires than we have and who own large parts of British industry?

Because Cameron wants to show his fluffy careing credentials to all and sundry, and a fat lot of good it has done him.

As my wife's mother used to say "proffered goods stink". They are not appreciated.

When I was a child a relation of mine was given sixpence to by a kind shopkeeper to buy some sweets. She promptly took the money to the shop next door which she said had better sweets.

So giving is not always reciprocated especially when the gift is not asked for.

I however prefer to donate to charities of my own choosing and at my discretion and not to be compelled to by taxes.

So what should our reaction to this gross ingratitude be?

STOP ALL AID TO INDIA.

The money saved (a billion pounds) could be spent on projects which benefit us and our industry.

Reduce national insurance costs on our manufacturing industries, thus making them more competitive in international trade.

This policy could be replicated with all the foreign aid projects which unacceptible as they are are made even worse by the fact that the money does not go to the intended poor as was stated by an Indian last night but are syphoned off by corrupt officials both in the recipient countries and those administrating these funds here.

We, as a country can compete on equal terms with any others but we are beset by regulations and taxes which dilutes our competitiveness internationally.

There are too many ways we could rescue our industries and jobs to be detailed here but on this topic, if the £13 billion of borrowed money squandered on this unappreciated foreign aid was diverted to manufacturing in our country thus giving us a return on our investment we would be in a better position to face the financial armageddon which threatens us.

Our government is supposed to look after our interests not those of others. That is what a nationalist government would do.

The government must know what they are doing. If not they are not fit to govern.

If they do know they are--

TRAITORS, and with luck will face justice in the future and a justice more severe than that meted out to the ex Sir Fred Goodwin, for they have damaged our country far more.

THE EX SIR FRED.

Thank God for that, back on line at last after nearly a week.
There has been so much to comment on but the time for these comments is past.

Today the news is that ex Sir Fred (the shred) Goodwin is now plain Mr.

It is said he was not a very nice person to work for and I'm sure his employees will shed (shred?) few tears at his public disgrace.

Opinions are divided as to the merits of this withdrawal of an honour is right or justified.
Myself I couldn't care a damn.
A knighthood is worthless as can readily be judged by the poor calibre of many of those so "honoured", usually talentless media types or sportsmen and such worthies as "Sir" Mark Thatcher.
Not that it would ever happen but if I was offered this bauble I would decline rather than be associated with such mediocre types.
The same goes for those "elevated" to the Lords, many of whom with criminal records remain there. It seems that they can not be removed however bad their conduct and they have the power to influence our laws.

So why would it bother the ex Sir Fred that he no longer has his title?
Because for these people mere money is not enough. It seems they must have a bauble however much money they have, possibly an inferiority complex in spite of it. It may be just the ability to get the best table in a posh restaurant.

I believe ex Sir Fred should be punished together with the many others who have brought this financial catastrophe on our people, other bankers, politicians, senior civil servants, judges and the like.
How to do it? Remove their titles?

NO, hit them in their pockets as they have hit ours.

Deprive them of their unjustified pensions, after all they will have had the opportunity to save out of their massive salaries.
This would incentivise caution with other people's money and the nation's assets and will not be seen as rewarding failure.
Most small businessmen whom Cameron wants to revive the economy put their own money and futures at risk when they embark on a new venture.

Bankers and the rest of the financial so called industries should do the same.

Then perhaps we would have a more balanced prosperous country, but in any case--

IT WOULD BE FAIRER.

Are Our Children Safe? An Investigation Of Politics & Suicide Risks - Brian Gerrish

UK riots: paratroopers are trained in riot control

Ahhh..the JOYS OF DIVERSITY.

British troops are being trained in riot control tactics amid fears that violence and looting will return to Britain's streets this summer.

Hundreds of soldiers from 3rd battalion The Parachute Regiment spent last week learning how to contain and arrest "rioters" in a series of exercises mirroring last summers violence.

Defence sources have confirmed that if violence were to return to British cities, especially during the Olympic Games, the Paras would be "ideally placed" to provide "short-term" support to police forces around the UK.

Such a request would have to be made by the Home Office and would have to have Prime Ministerial approval, according to the source.

During the exercises at the Lydd training base in Kent, the elite troops were pelted with petrol bombs and missiles and "fought" running battles with gangs of protesters as part of the battalion's "public order training".

The battalion is the lead unit in the Airborne Task Force - the Army's premier rapid response unit and can be called on to deal with a wide range of emergency situations - from hostage rescue to riot control - around the world.

Sources have stressed however that being riot-trained does not necessarily mean the Paras will be deployed onto British street in the event of future wide-scale public disorder; instead the move was described as "prudent contingency planning".

There is not understood to have been a specific request from the Home Office or police for the training to be carried out.

The riot training could be used if soldiers were called in to evacuate British nationals or embassies in the face of public disorder in a foreign country.

In the past, riot training was carried out by all troops deploying to Northern Ireland where public disturbances were commonplace. But those skills have been lost following the withdrawal of troops from the streets of the province.

But it is understood that commanders of units likely to be deployed into public order environments have been must have troops ready to be able to deal with all military and civil emergencies.

As well as 3 Para, the Army has another unit known as the "Public Order Battalion", also trained to deal with rioting, bringing the total number of troops to around 1500.

During last week's training package soldiers were taught how to use body-length use riots shields, protect themselves from missiles and how to identify and arrest "ring leaders' using specially trained "snatch squads".

Troops were trained into how to work as teams armed with body-length shields in driving back hostile crowds. The exercise culminated in a full scale riot with fellow soldiers acting as aggressors.

Major Richard Todd, the officer commanding A Coy 3 Para, said: "Learning how to deal with public order situations is a new skill for on a challenging and extremely realistic course.

"Many of the drills are no different to what the Roman Army used to do, with highly disciplined soldiers advancing forward under the protection of shields.

"The key to dealing with large, hostile crowds is control and knowing when and how to react to what is happening in front of you.

"This training is about getting soldiers used to facing a high pressure situation so they don't overreact if they have to face it for real."

Private Peter Harrington, 19, who was also taking part in the exercise added: "It is scary to have petrol bombs thrown at you and really gets the adrenaline going.

"I've had the experience of it now and learnt that dealing with public order incidents is all about looking out for each other and keeping a cool head."

Last summer's rioting was sparked by the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham. The violence quickly spread across London and to other cities where police attacked with fire bombs, shops were looted and businesses burnt to the ground.

The violence, which saw home owners being forced to jump from burning buildings, led to calls for the Army to be deployed on to the streets to support the police.

One senior source said: "The police couldn't cope with last year's riots and the Army came very close to being deployed.

"All of the Army's riot equipment was in Scotland at the time and that created a time delay but lessons from that have been learnt. The Army could have deployed but it would have been only marginally quicker than the police.

"Soldiers would have powers of arrest and would be entitled to defend themselves using minimum force. It is unlikely they would be armed but that would be an option if the situation deteriorated.

"They would almost certainly deploy with baton rounds, which are discriminate and, if used correctly, non-lethal."

The riots were the were the worst for a generation and caused over £300m of damage. Hundreds of shops and warehouses were looted as gangs of youth organised attacks via twitter and other social media sites.

The number and spontaneity of the riots often meant that police from forces across the country, but especially in London, were stretched to the limit and in some cases unable to cope.

Local residents were forced to form vigilante groups to protect their communities after confidence in the police evaporated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9046668/UK-riots-paratroopers-are-trained-in-riot-control.html

---------------------------

"Local residents were forced to form vigilante groups to protect their communities"

Unless they were from the Indigenous community and then the Police went in in full force against them whilst the New Brits were allowed to arm themselves openly on the streets.

But we in the Nationalist community have been warning you all that the Troops will end up being deployed on the streets of Britain to stop the IMMIGRANTS (New Brits) from doing just as they please as the now PRIVATE POLICE FORCES will not, due to orders from the TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT, go in full force against our replacements.

IT'S ALL PART OF THE MULTICULT/DIVERSITY or TREASON BEING FORCED ON THE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY, WE WERE NEVER ASKED NOR TOLD THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU VOTED FOR THE LIB/LAB/CONNED US AGAIN PARTIES.

APOLOGY FROM LANKY PATRIOT

I would like to, on behalf of Lanky Patriot, apologise to those who have been expecting replies to Emails and new Blog posts but have received no reply nor read any new Blog posts from Lanky Patriot. This is due to a BT fault within the exchange which has taken Lanky Patriot Offline for the last few days.

Normal service will be resumed within the next 2/3 days all being well.

IS THE DEFUNCT USS ENTERPRISE TO BE USED AS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK TO ATTACK IRAN ?

The oldest US aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise is heading to the Persian Gulf. With the collapse of the oil embargo, it's to force Iran into a confrontation over the Straight of Hormuz. The US and Israel NeoCons are looking for another way to get the long-sought war with Iran started, and more to the point, need to make it look like Iran is starting hostilities in order to make it politically more difficult for Russia and China to support Iran. Now, recall that Israel has a past history of attack US warships and framing other to trick the US into attacks on Israel's enemies, with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (initially blamed on Egypt) as the most well-known example. So here we have the USS Enterprise, the oldest carrier in the fleet, on its last legs, scheduled to be decommissioned next year. Decommissioning a nuclear aircraft carrier is a very expensive process. USS Enterprise powered by 8 nuclear reactors, all of which must be disposed of as nuclear waste material along with all the associated machinery. The US Navy would save a great deal of money, more than the scrap worth of the steel, if USS Enterprise were to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, where the radioactive mess is someone else's problem to deal with. So, why send an ancient ship at the end of her useful life into harms way? The same reason Franklin Roosevelt moved a bunch of obsolete warships from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, while the newer carriers and warships were well away from Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. Israel has 3 Dolphin submarines, given to her by Germany. They have been seen transiting the Suez Canal in the past, and could well be operating in the Gulf of Oman, even the Persian Gulf by now, lying in wait for a used-up and obsolete warship, more useful as a sacrificial lamb than an actual weapon. A ship with American sailors, to be attacked as Israel attacked the USS Liberty, then to be blamed on the designated target, Iran. Let's save the lives of these brave sailors. Make them doubt a false-flag will be believed, maybe they will call it off. Countless lives will be saved.

---------------------------